WP/41686/2026 of Sri Ranga Naicker Munusamy Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Deputy State Tax Off on 12 October 2026

ORDER

Challenge made in this Writ Petition is to the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 12.11.2025 passed by the first respondent and the consequential impugned order in Form GST APL-02, dated 02.07.2026 passed by the second respondent on the ground that there was a delay of 89 days.

2. Mr. I. Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent issued a summary of show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 73 of the GST Act on 11.07.2025 and thereafter the petitioner came to know about the impugned Order dated 12.11.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 passed by the first respondent without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Since the petitioner's Accountant had failed to view the portal, as he was seriously ill, they were not aware of the said notices, due to which, they failed to file their appeal within the time. Being unaware of the said impugned order and ill-health of the Accountant, the petitioner has failed to file their appeal within time. Thereafter, the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was preferred by the petitioner with a delay of 89 days. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the second respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Further, she would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount after deducting the amount already recovered by the respondent i.e., 24.36% of the disputed amount from the petitioner. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the second respondent.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondents would submit that the delay, in filing the appeal, has occurred only due to the fault on the part of the petitioner and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

7. In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passed on 12.11.2025. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was belatedly preferred by the petitioner on 02.07.2026, i.e., with a delay of 89 days. As the delay was beyond the condonable period, the said appeal was rejected by the second respondent vide impugned order dated 02.07.2026. According to the petitioner, since the Accountant was under seriously ill, they remained unaware of the said order and were consequently unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time.

8. The above reason assigned by the petitioner, for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order, on terms.

9. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has already recovered 24.36% of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 02.07.2026 passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned rejection order dated 02.07.2026 is set aside and the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order is hereby condoned subject to the payment of remaining amount of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner to the respondent-Department deducting the amount of 24.36% already paid/recovered.

ii) If the appeal filed by the petitioner was completely returned, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh appeal, within a period of two weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.

iii) Thereafter, the second respondent/Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

10. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SRM

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SRM To

1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer /Deputy State Tax Officer 2 Pattravakkam Assessment Circle 4/109, Bangalore High Road Varadharajapuram, Nazaratpet Poonamallee, Chennai 600 123 Tamil Nadu, India

2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)/Deputy Commissioner(ST) Collectorate Campus Kancheepuram - 631501,Tamil Nadu, India. W.P. No. 41686 of 2026 12-10-2026